The MEA's political activism on "gay marriage" is just another reason for the State legislature to pass more school reform laws which would allow sensible parents of school-age children to send their own children with their own money, via tax credits or some type of voucher, to a private school, religious or secular, to get away from this political organization and its radical social agenda. Sending your children to the government monopoly schools run by such social revolutionaries is akin to child abuse.

The real story here is that the endorsement will likely carry a sizable campaign donation with it. And those funds derive from taxpayers through passthrough fees on health insurance, and from dues of teachers who may or may not agree with that endorsement.

Many members do have an opposite take, Marlin, as the BDN comments clearly show. Some say they support gay marriage, but strongly condemn the union making an endorsement. I believe the union leaders will be hearing some complaints in the coming days, as many teachers don't care for the union taking a stand on the ballot measure, nor their dues being used on political issues.

When some questioned the condemnation of the endorsement, I asked what their reaction would have been, if the union had come out against SSM. Funny, how things got really quiet after that.

Like religion, schools and teachers' unions should stay out of pushing one side or the other when it comes to social/moral issues. We don't pay them to proselytize.

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Scores of Maine churches will pass the collection plate...on Father's Day to kick off a fundraising campaign for the lead opposition group to November's ballot question...to legalize same-sex marriages.

(MEA)... playing a “political game” by endorsing a November ballot referendum ... Gov. Paul LePage said on Friday.

The Maine Education Association's endorsement ... of the ballot measure is an example of its priorities because it is choosing to focus on a gay marriage rather than expanding opportunities for teacher development, LePage said...

In a May 24 letter to the union's president Chris Galgay, LePage reiterated a previous offer to match dollar for dollar any increase in professional development funds offered to teachers by the union.

Not long ago the Maine Education Association — the teachers union — promoted educational excellence in public schools and worked for better pay and benefits for teachers. Certainly, that was the public image the MEA enjoyed.

But times have changed. Today, it has dropped any pretenses and has shown itself to be a well-financed, partisan lobbying group that advocates a progressive ideology.

The MEA’s recent newsletter includes a “scorecard” — “Where do your legislators stand?” — illustrating the group’s partisan political stance. It shows that it no longer takes positions on just education policy and teacher benefits; it has begun to advocate for the Democrats’ party-line positions on a variety of issues including election policy, private health insurance reform, minimum wage and child labor laws.

One bill on the scorecard, LD 1326, would allow school districts to self-insure or get competitive bids elsewhere. It is obvious why the teachers union would be opposed to LD 1326. School districts that took that route would no longer be buying health insurance through the MEA and that would mean the union would no longer get its lucrative fee for being the middleman.

LD 1326 did pass the legislature and was signed by the governor. The MEA is now suing the state — that’s you and me — to prevent schools from using this cost-savings tool.

Another bill is LD 1553, which created a charter school program for Maine. Charter schools have proven to be effective as an alternative learning choice for some students. Sadly, the teachers union does not want these schools educating Maine children, as that would mean fewer dues paid to the union.

But other bills on the scorecard have absolutely nothing to do with education policy, teachers or even organized labor. LD 1333 addressed health insurance reform in the private market. LD 447 was a bill to raise the minimum wage again. LD 1376 was the election procedures reform bill.

The MEA’s explanations for supporting or not supporting these noneducation bills were weak at best, claiming some to be “pro-worker” and others not.

The reality is that the teachers union has chosen to advocate for their political party’s position in these matters — and without polling members. It can then use this “scorecard” in political campaigns.

As one can see from the MEA.org website, almost all Republicans receive a score of 20 percent or below on these hand-picked Democratic issues (most get a score of 0 percent) while almost all Democrats get 80 percent or above, with most scoring a “perfect” 100 percent.

The Maine Education Association has long been a powerful force in Augusta. Its lobbyists are some of the most well-paid and influential in the capital. It has played a dominant role in not only directing the investment of education dollars but in determining Maine education policy. Now we see it has expanded its reach into all facets of state government policy.

As a past member of several different labor unions, I understand how collective bargaining can benefit some members. I have also watched as big labor became much more ideological over the years, with many workers no longer support this increasingly partisan ideology. The MEA is a good example of this overreaching.

It would be one thing if the money funneling into the MEA’s coffers were private dollars paid voluntarily by union members. But the teachers union dues that fund this left-wing advocacy organization come directly from you and me through property taxes and other state taxes.

This has got to change. Union dues should never be paid for with tax dollars — especially when the union uses those dollars for partisan political purposes. The MEA has to remember that it is a collective bargaining unit for public school teachers and should be promoting education excellence, not the Maine Democratic Party’s agenda.

I just met my second same gender "spouse" -- married in Mass. Another nice, suprisingly conservative lady. While I may consider the concept of SSM intelectually silly and legally unnecessary, my experience with the participants thus far has been positive.

Let's face facts, either we are going to have to allow same sex couples all the bennies that the government offers heterosexual couples, or we are going to have to get the government out of the marriage business.

Getting the government out of the marriage business would be my preference, but it is not going to happen. The Party of more government is certainly not going down that path, and the Party of less government obviously does not believe that that principle should apply here (Big Government conservatives and Daddy State Republicans take note).

I have said it for almost a year now- the marriage referendum will cost the GOP their House majority, and possibly the Senate too. The Governor and GOP legislative leadership should have offered an alternative to the referendum question to take control of the issue away from the interest groups, just as happened with the clearcutting referendum and the Compact.

Government simply cannot get out of the marriage business because a marriage is a legally enforceable contract which confers specific rights and obligations to the married couple. I think these same rights and obligations should enure to SSM couples as well as hetros. The obligations (divorce, alimony, pension and asset sharing, etc.) should also be part of the deal. The ONLY problem is the "word" MARRIAGE. As I have said before, call SSM by a different name but with 100% of the marriage rights and obligations. Lets call it:

The MEA is a "selfish organization" in that it is always interested in what will enhance its political power and support.

This was just simply a movemnent on their part to cash in, any way they can, on the strong political support that the gay community enjoys.

And I will pause here to say again, "eauality in marriage" will only come to pass if anyone can "marry" anyone they want, including sibling, parent, child, or animal as we had a Maine guy a few years back that was desperately in love with his dog. If it is truly about "equality of choice" then logic would dictate that there be no boundaries emplaced by government, certainly none of the dozen or more that exist now in the laws of this state.

If a Marriage, or a "Certificate of Marriage" is the lawful union of a husband and wife, ...

How about calling it a Sodomage, or a "Certificate of Sodomage" . The root implies a same sex union. It is gender neutral and is what same sex proponents are asking others to support, even though you will not hear them reference use the root term in their promotions.

This is not a practice, or behavior, I can support. It is not to say that there cannot be a genuine love between two people of the same sex, there often is and the world could use more of that. I genuinely love my brother; I have a genuine love for many of my friends. I do not desire, nor see it as a natural behavior, to take any of them as my "wife" or "partner", and that does not mean I wouldn't lay my life down for them.

I do not wish to see laws, traditions, or educational teachings corrupted to make these behaviors appear as the norm.

Others are entitled to their own opinions and views, I do not suspect any of us will convert the other side to a different opinion.